News

MacMinute: WSJ: Apple to introduce cheaper iPod

By Dennis Lloyd ● Monday, January 5, 2004

“The Wall Street Journal (paid subscription required) is reporting that Apple will introduce a new, low-cost iPod later today. However, the price the publication expects—US$200—is “more than the $100 figure that has circulated on Apple rumor Web sites in recent weeks,” but “it’s still a sharp enough markdown that Apple hopes will attract a much larger audience of music and gadget lovers.” A $200 iPod would likely offer profit margins in the “single-digits or low double-digits” compared with profit margins ranging from 20 percent to 45 percent for its higher-end models, says Charlie Wolf, an analyst at brokerage firm Needham & Co.”

Comments

1

I think the paper might be buying into a bit of the rumour hype that has been pretty manic lately. The article sounds like a lot of hot air and speculation from a “pundit”. Especially about the profit margins.

Posted by camson in Irvine, CA on January 6, 2004 at 12:32 AM (CST)

1

THat’s true camson, but they do seem pretty sure, I suppose we’ll know very soon wether or not it’s true

Posted by Nuke666 in Irvine, CA on January 6, 2004 at 2:16 AM (CST)

1

I think the paper might be buying into a bit of the rumour hype

That’s amusing as hell.

I’ve been contending that the rumored $99 iPod will actually be priced closer to $159 since the rumor broke. We’ll see shortly.

Posted by cherrypop in Irvine, CA on January 6, 2004 at 6:20 AM (CST)

1

hmmm regardless if the rumor turns out to be true or not - i just can’t believe that so called reputable publications are publishing speculation as fact. It kinda sickens me and makes me wonder who their sources are and what they consider to be a ‘good source’.

Like I said in another comment - the only people who know what will happen at the keynote is steve jobs and the staff that have worked on any new projects. Resellers, the majority of apple staff, and everyone else find out about apple stuff when the public does - so anyone claiming to have ‘inside information’ probably doesn’t….because i know for a fact that if anyone in key staff positions wouldn’t let anything slip, and if they did, they would pay for it.